brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Brickipedia:Articles for Rating/Class 1/Part 53450
* Nominated by: –[[User:Agent Charge|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'Charge']] 22:14, October 21, 2012 (UTC) * Nomination comments: It meets the criteria, and it stands out from most Class 2 articles. It has several pictures from different angles and a very thorough description. Vote score: +3, Technical Check: Not OK ;Support # Stormbringer Empire791 (talk) 23:33, October 21, 2012 (UTC) # I don't like the idea of C1 part articles, but I must admit this one is head and shoulders above the rest. #:# I've fixed what Berrybrick brought up. It looks good to me. # Looks good. 01:05, October 23, 2012 (UTC) # Though I do think what NBS mentioned should be fixed, it isn't actually in the MoS (as far as I know). 20:49, October 23, 2012 (UTC) ;Object : Weak Oppose I would support if that image of the golden helmet was not from LDD. 10:23, October 22, 2012 (UTC) :: My golden viking helmet broke, so that's why I didn't have a photo of it. (Thanks Jeyo) –[[User:Agent Charge|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'Charge']] 22:57, October 22, 2012 (UTC) : Per Berrybrick (apart from the would support part) Personally I'd also like to see a list of element ID's for this article, it is meant to be the absolute best it can be to be a c1 after all. Honestly I thought this was a part of the infobox, but it looks like it got removed early on :S 23:09, October 22, 2012 (UTC) ::What would make you support? –[[User:Agent Charge|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'Charge']] 22:57, October 22, 2012 (UTC) :::The element IDs? Are those the numbers at the end of the building instructions? –[[User:Agent Charge|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'Charge']] 00:25, October 23, 2012 (UTC) ::::Yes, I believe so. :::::And where does that go? –[[User:Agent Charge|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'Charge']] 06:26, October 23, 2012 (UTC) ::::::Er...I've been wondering that myself. In my opinion, there should be a place in the part infobox for the element ID. 06:28, October 23, 2012 (UTC) :::::::There was when the template was first created, then it got removed a day or so after its creation :S Should I add it back in? 06:54, October 23, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::Yes, I think so. Then we'd get to update all the part articles along with the idea KoN introduced! :D :::::::::Yay, lots of fun! :D Added in the Element ID parameter, will have to check with the codemaster about how to get it so both show buttons don't show both hidden divs, but it's close enough for now. @The article- corrected years field (only had 2005 listed), correct name of gold colour, added in the two Element IDs I could find, unable to find the silver one. 23:37, October 23, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::::Are you still opposing it? –[[User:Agent Charge|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'Charge']] 20:41, October 26, 2012 (UTC) # Per my opposition in the comments. 06:41, October 29, 2012 (UTC) ;Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) * (see comments) 23:15, October 29, 2012 (UTC) ;Comments * What's with the note? According to the article, there are no black helmets... 23:39, October 23, 2012 (UTC) ** Fixed the notes part. –[[User:Agent Charge|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'Charge']] 01:01, October 25, 2012 (UTC) ***Actually, it is black. The same black that the 3rd generation shadow knights are. It's just dotted with silver. 02:25, October 28, 2012 (UTC) ****It does appear black, but when you compare it to normal black bricks, it looks like a very dark silver. I'd say keep it as dark silver. –[[User:Agent Charge|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'Charge']] 00:50, October 29, 2012 (UTC) * The requirements are met. Do I make it c1 yet? –[[User:Agent Charge|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'Charge']] 00:51, October 29, 2012 (UTC) ** Made it c1. Any objections? –[[User:Agent Charge|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'Charge']] 06:25, October 29, 2012 (UTC) ***Yes. the colouring. We ought to have a "Black Glitter" colour in the palette. Check Brickset for proof if you want, but it is black with silver dots, not metallic dark grey. 06:41, October 29, 2012 (UTC) ****Okay…but I don't know how to do that. –[[User:Agent Charge|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'Charge']] 06:45, October 29, 2012 (UTC) *****Perhaps NBS can help, but It would be wrong to make the article c1 without proper listing. It isn't just this part either. The visor of Dracus, several axe head variations, the 3rd shadow knight variation and the 3rd variation of Vladek all have the same "Black-Glitter" colour. 16:14, October 29, 2012 (UTC) ****** @Jeyo: Yeah, I think NBS can probably add more colours to the palette- I have no idea how. @Charge: Look, there's a certain way these things are done- When the nomination has been open for at least a week (check), When it has at least +3 votes (check), and When all disputes about it have been resolved (NOT check), the nomination can be closed and it can be made C1. As it is, until this colour dispute is resolved (I'm with Jeyo on this one, by the way), the nomination cannot be closed, and the article cannot be made C1. ******* @Clig: When I made it c1, everything had been addressed. –[[User:Agent Charge|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'Charge']] 00:37, October 30, 2012 (UTC) * Will work on updating the colour palette sometime within 12 hours (sorry, probably don't have time to right now) 23:15, October 29, 2012 (UTC) ** Okay. I've done what I can. –[[User:Agent Charge|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'Charge']] 23:49, October 31, 2012 (UTC) * Ok, here we go. ** It appears that the standard Viking helmet's design ID is 53450 (since it's on LDD as this). However, both the gold and the silver glitter versions are lacquered, which is like the case of printed parts, ie, they have separate Design ID's and therefore should be separate articles. *** VIKING HELMET LAQUERED GOLD (the Warm Gold version) is 54199 *** VIKING HELMET LACQUERED (the glitter one) has its exact colour listed as COOL SILVER, DIFFUSE. Its design ID is 53708 *** LEGO don't provide replacement parts for Collectable Minifigures, so I can't look the ID of the other one up. :: 09:58, November 2, 2012 (UTC) **** So they're different parts, right? –[[User:Agent Charge|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'Charge']] 00:05, November 5, 2012 (UTC) ***** Done both. –[[User:Agent Charge|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'Charge']] 23:43, November 5, 2012 (UTC) ****** All issues resolved and unanimous support...c1 given. 07:20, November 11, 2012 (UTC)